Hold Congress Accountable

Knowledge is power. It makes sure people understand what is happening to their country, and how they can make a difference. FreedomWorks University will give you the tools to understand economics, the workings of government, the history of the American legal system, and the most important debates facing our nation today. Enroll in FreedomWorks University today!

When the editorial pages of the conservative Wall Street Journal and the liberal Washington Post agree on an issue, both politicians and voters should take notice. Recently the Post described America’s legal system as a "kind of lottery in which clever trial lawyers and a few victims get very rich at the cost of society's confidence in the justice system." The Journal opined that recent verdicts have "corrod[ed] the public’s, and the world’s, belief that courtrooms are serious places."

Before Congress adjourns for its summer recess, the House Judiciary Committee is set to consider legislation designed to enhance federal "diversity jurisdiction" over class-action liability cases. The purpose of H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act, is to make it easier for defendants in multi-state class-action torts to transfer their cases from state courts to federal court. As it becomes more and more a form of regulation, tort law will become more susceptible to structural tinkering designed to benefit special interests, much like the tax code.

Consumers of telecommunications services, advocates of smaller government, and ultimately, the U.S. Constitution are under attack by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Recently, the FCC not only unilaterally raised the federal telephone E-Rate tax (also known as the "Gore-tax" after its chief promoter Vice President Al Gore) by 73 percent, but it also took deliberate steps to block phone companies from identifying the tax on their customers’ phone bills.

With the announcement of their "Livability Agenda" and "Lands Legacy Initiative," the Clinton-Gore administration has brought the federal government into the battle over what is euphemistically called "urban sprawl." The administration claims that its "smart growth" proposals will solve a host of problems such as air pollution, the loss of farmland and open spaces, traffic congestion and even having too little time in the day.

With the announcement of their "Livability Agenda" and "Lands Legacy Initiative," the Clinton-Gore administration has brought the federal government into the battle over what is euphemistically called "urban sprawl." The administration claims that its "smart growth" proposals will solve a host of problems such as air pollution, the loss of farmland and open spaces, traffic congestion and even having too little time in the day.

What is the Re-Study? The Central and Southern Florida Comprehensive Review Study ("Re-Study") is a review of the Central and Southern Florida Project (C&SF) that recommends a dramatically reconfigured approach to South Florida’s water policy. First authorized by Congress in 1948, the C&SF today provides fresh water and flood protection to nearly 6 million people in a 16-county region.

What is the Re-Study? The Central and Southern Florida Comprehensive Review Study ("Re-Study") is a review of the Central and Southern Florida Project (C&SF) that recommends a dramatically reconfigured approach to South Florida’s water policy. First authorized by Congress in 1948, the C&SF today provides fresh water and flood protection to nearly 6 million people in a 16-county region.

When politicians try to practice medicine, their remedy is often more dangerous than the disease. The latest Washington proposal to expand government-run health care — this time, Medicare — comes at a time when the main concern should be saving Medicare from bankruptcy.

Summary. Every year, the federal government considers over 4,000 regulations, some of which can cost billions. The scientific and research data used to make decisions about these regulations must be of the highest quality in order to ensure that proposed regulations will actually benefit the public. However, it is often the case that the people who ultimately pay for the research, the taxpayers, do not have access to the research upon which a proposed government regulation based.